Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Ministering in Gotham

Some corners of the Reformed world consistently criticize Timothy Keller for his ministry practices. Having attended Redeemer, I find some of these criticisms to be unfair.

This is especially the case for those that suggest or state Keller compromises the Gospel in order to coddle and appease the expectations of unbelievers. Keller often commits the only secular sin of unapologetically asserting that belief in Jesus Christ is superior to all other religions and belief systems. That's far from accommodating.

Keller isn't beyond critique, of course, but sometimes it seems like his faultfinders are clueless as to what's involved in ministering in New York City. Their cultural expectations, which they improperly universalize in evaluations of other ministries, seem generated from Southern and/or heavily Christianized environments. What's appropriate in a nominal Christian culture isn't necessarily appropriate in a post-Christian environment.

I think Keller has his finger on the cultural pulse of New York City and effectively dismantles the postmodern foundation upon which all manner of sinful lifestyles are built, offering instead a life built on Christ. Criticisms of his failure to speak to some specific sins are misguided insofar as they fail to appreciate that there's more than one way to diminish sinful behavior. Sometimes one sin is produced by another sin, or several sins are symptoms of a greater, underlying sin. If you dig up the roots, you kill the tree and its fruit.

This is especially relevant given the transitory nature of New York City. You don't have a lot of time to speak to surface manifestations of deeper idols. You need to attack the heart of the secular lifestyle before its too late. It's not like a small town in rural Georgia where you can expect the same congregants to faithfully attend church for ten, twenty or thirty years.

This also means I disagree with some of the attempts to repeat the Redeemer model elsewhere. New York isn't Boston or LA.

There's also a lot of work to be done. Christians are underrepresented in urban areas in general, and New York is no exception. Given the number of lost souls and the enormous influence cities have on society at large, someone like Keller has an obligation to draw a wide net.

I'm also reproducing some relevant remarks I left on a comment thread containing criticisms of Keller and Redeemer:

Brad said:

I’m given to reckless oversimplification. Here I go again: The Redeemerites/transfos are basically “U2 church.” Their deepest desire is to see Bono join a hipster PCA church. For Bono to sign up of course he’d need to like us and feel comfortable. The whole movement is about building a “space” that Bono would like and about doing things he would largely approve of.

I came to Christ listening to Keller preach during my undergraduate years at New York University, after which I spent a few years attending Redeemer.

What Keller preaches is viewed as radically intolerant and utterly absurd by the secular world in NYC, to say nothing of how ridiculous Keller and fellow evangelicals look within the university context (I was a Religious Studies major). He’s just another contemptible Evangelical as far as many are concerned, as Redeemer’s preaching ministry is unapologetic in its clear declaration that Christ alone is the path to salvation and fulfillment.

You can criticize his approach to homosexuality, and there’s probably a better way for Keller to address the issue (I suspect he frames it the way he does because some, or many, gay people in NYC listening to an Evangelical on these issues will automatically associate him with the “God hates f—” movement unless he’s exceptionally careful with his words). But please avoid these kinds of simplifications about how Redeemer simply wants hip celebrities to “need to like us and feel comfortable.” Maybe you simply need to live and work in the city to appreciate the utter contempt its inhabitants have for any exclusive truth claims; neither I nor my friends in the city felt that Redeemer was seeking to make others “feel comfortable” like you might find at some theologically liberal church. Simply by proclaiming Jesus as exclusive Lord and Savior and taking the Bible seriously as God’s inspired/inerrant Word you are creating a deeply uncomfortable, even offensive, environment (to say nothing of Keller’s consistently pointed critiques of the postmodern, relativistic understanding of truth and fulfillment).

Phillip Mayberry said:

Dear Matthew,

Your point about oversimplification is well taken.

I am glad you are in the faith, my brother. There IS a better way to address homosexuality, and it is to say what the Bible says. The way something is viewed by a God-hating culture is irrelevent to the message itself. We have no liberty to change the message. Period. I rejoice where Pastor Keller gets it right, I lament where he gets it wrong. Whether or not we will speak what Jesus spoke openly is a serious matter according to Mark 8:38: check it out. With prestige comes great temptation to compromise.

I remember a man whose message was also rejected, and yet the message was not altered at all. This man calls his disciples to do the same… nothing less, for any reason, and no matter where they live, and no matter what the consequences- even death or loss.

Hope you will consider this: it is written in love. I have spoken personally to Pastor Keller along the same lines, and exhorted him to stick with the Bible, and proclaim it openly on every topic, not just what we deem to be the “main” ones. We are heralds, speaking the message of the King, not politicians, keeping some parts of the message quiet so as not to offend. The gospel is offensive: and as you point out, people already think we are crazy anyway- why not declare the whole counsel of God?

Grace to you,

Phillip


Phillip,

I appreciate the spirit in which your comments are offered.

We need to distinguish between compromise and presentation. I think the question is not whether the message is declared, but where and how it is preached, and in what manner, for, if I recall correctly, Redeemer is undoubtedly clear about this issue on its membership form. I also believe it confronts the issue in small groups.

In NYC (or Manhattan, really) what is the critical issue for its inhabitants? Since Richard Rorty won the question of solidarity at the academy, and logical positivism has suffered its (frankly all too fitting) death, the critical philosophical issue, and thus critical theological concern, is whether objective truth exists, whether there are normative, universal standards binding on all of humanity. Obviously the secular intellectual and cultural leaders of the city say "no," and there is now a belief that the words you choose have the power to create value and meaning. Combine this with a generous heaping of Enlightenment individualism, and you have an edifice, a structural framework, that excuses sins of every kind merely as a matter of personal preference, fulfillment and choice.

Keller attacks and dismantles this edifice on a regular basis. It's one of the stronger points of his preaching that only Christ will satisfy the deepest longings of your heart, not whatever you yourself define and pursue as the means of satisfaction. He attacks the intellectual/philosophical roots that produce virtually all the sins of the secular world, including homosexuality. To focus on this foundation is highly effective in that sense, especially given the intellectual nature of his audience, which will work out the implications of what he teaches a the core level. Certainly this line of attack, this destruction of deep, abiding, foundational patterns and assumptions of sin, worked much more effectively on my heart than if someone had simply preached to the surface manifestations of my sinful behavior. Obviously that's not applicable in all situations, but I don't think we can discount this approach as necessarily false.

People listening to Keller come to see the ravishing beauty of Jesus Christ over against the secular ash heap that is personally defined fulfillment. They then can't help but give up their sinful habits and ask Christ what he demands of their lives--including sexually in the practice of homosexuality, if I am to believe some of the reports I've heard.

While you're certainly correct to say that the "way something is viewed by a God-hating culture is irrelevant to the message itself," this has the potential to paper over an acute issue that all pastors in cultures other than the ANE in which Christ was preaching must address. Sometimes when you say one thing to one culture, it will be misinterpreted as another thing you didn't say. Of course, sometimes this is willful and deliberate on the part of the audience, done in order to distort and create (yet another) excuse for sinful behavior. But since we have some measure of control over how the Gospel is received, to what extent do we have an obligation to change our presentation (not content) so as to be properly understood by the audience hearing our message? The practical outworking of this question is felt in NYC when people hear condemnations of homosexual behavior; the homosexual community and its allies will interpret such language as that of Fred Phelps. Obviously the orthodox position on this matter is nowhere near what Phelps presents, but how do you speak to this issue so that others, conditioned by the media to associate a denial of homosexual "rights" with the language and attitude of "God hates f---," can understand that you are offering the Gospel of hope to sinners who are lost under the wrath of God in their self-destructive ways, rather than a reveling and rejoicing, as Nietzsche and other moderns suspect (not without reason), in the eventual torment and suffering of those "disgusting sinners" over there? This is not an easy question, and its often made out to be almost binary by those who really demonstrate no comprehension of the difficulties of ministering in what is almost accurately called the City of Satan.

Again, I think Keller could be better on this issue, but it's not the kind of deficit it's often made out to be by people (not necessarily you in particular) who strike as both simplistic and unsympathetic in their critique of Redeemer and the work it does in a culture completely and totally alien to the Southern and/or Christianized environment that most of the PCA seems to enjoy.

39 comments:

  1. Pastor Keller has done tremendous ministry work for the Glory of God and the growth of God's Kingdom.

    What's a bit disconcerting about pastor Keller are these 3 things:

    o His advocacy of theistic evolution.

    o Soft in terms of affirming Scripture's teaching that same-sex behavior is sin.

    o Lastly, he's been called out by the Bayly brothers for Redeemer's women in ministry practices.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/10/ron-gleason-tim-keller-and-woman-deacons.html

    and

    http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/04/compare-and-contrast.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. My response to hearing Keller's outreach is that it is "outreach". The presentation of such a message MAY be efficacious. The gospel IS preached, albeit in a somewhat subdued and contextualized manner. The apologetic technique appears to be one of "here's some information, we should speak further...". If so, I see no evidence that this differs from handing someone a mass-produced tract with a phone number on the back. I thought that the overview of the philosophiocal roots of the 20th-21st century milieu was correct.

    Thanks for making this known.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "People listening to Keller come to see the ravishing beauty of Jesus Christ over against the secular ash heap that is personally defined fulfillment. They then can't help but give up their sinful habits and ask Christ what he demands of their lives..."

    You know this is the rationale behind every bad evangelism scheme in history, right? If we show people how awesome Christ is, without the controversial parts, supposedly people "can't help" but repent.

    What we get is a watered-down religion that cannibalizes orthodoxy in the name of good public orthodoxy. Or we get wacky new groups like Calvary Chapel, Foursquare Gospel and Acts 29. Haven't we seen this enough times to see how wrongheaded this is?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We need to remember that it is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance, and Christ is indeed beautiful. The fact that homosexuals have attended Redeemer and in one case I recall one of them repenting should dispel much of the criticism regarding his presentation of homosexuality. Dr. Keller has also encouraged his congregation members to minister to homosexuals with AIDS through various venues in NYC. Dr. Keller and many at Redeemer have not only presented the Gospel, but indeed have demonstrated it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't know much of Tim Keller on the homosexual issue but on another culturally hot-topic issue I have listened to a debate once between Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan on the topic of women deacons and thought Keller was quite inconsistent with the principles under-girding a complementarian viewpoint.

    He seemed to allow for women to teach mixed adult Sunday schools on most topics. To me this seems to render the bible's teaching on gender roles in the church as not much more than an arbitrary rule that women cannot have the title of 'elder'. This seems to me to be a very poor application of the underlying principles Paul talked about of authority/submission or if you prefer, leadership/helpership.

    Having said that, I think there is some truth in what is being said here about being shrewd in the way that one goes about tearing down strongholds of satan. There are many different ways to capture a city.

    My concern is (perhaps wrongly?) not so much with the method as with some of the doctrine that is the 'end-point' of the methods.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Randall van der Sterren said:

    You know this is the rationale behind every bad evangelism scheme in history, right? If we show people how awesome Christ is, without the controversial parts, supposedly people "can't help" but repent.

    Did you read what I wrote?

    Either you did, and you blew past it, or you didn't, and you're giving us a typical knee-jerk reaction.

    I already noted that Keller regularly preaches the one and only secular sin of exclusivity. That's enormously "controversial" in the pluralistic society of New York City. In fact, that's all you need to say in some parts of the North to turn someone completely off to the Gospel.

    You can't extrapolate from one issue to the whole of Keller's ministry. Try to demonstrate some familiarity with the complexities of the situation.

    You need to account for the locale. What you find uncontroversial others find highly offensive. If Keller wanted to preach an uncontroversial Gospel in New York City, he wouldn't utilize C.S. Lewis' trilemma or claim that Christianity is a superior religion. He certainly wouldn't unapologetically preach that Jesus is God, that you are not the master of your own destiny, that you are accountable to someone other than yourself, that you need to get over the negative associations of the word and just "repent," that God is wrathful, or that sin even exists. I can't recall a sermon by him that didn't contain "controversial parts" of the Gospel.

    Or we get wacky new groups like Calvary Chapel, Foursquare Gospel and Acts 29. Haven't we seen this enough times to see how wrongheaded this is?

    I've seen the guilt by association fallacy enough to see how "wrongheaded" it is too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Theoretical "exclusivity" has no bite until it starts chewing on some idols.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Maybe you simply need to live and work in the city to appreciate the utter contempt its inhabitants have for any exclusive truth claims"...

    It's amazing that faithful NYC Christians can survive standing in line for their orange mocha frappucinos every day.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Did you read what I wrote?"

    Yes, Matthew.

    "I already noted that Keller regularly preaches the one and only secular sin of exclusivity."

    New York's civic religion only has ONE sin? That's just silly.

    "You need to account for the locale."

    1.) I'm an ex-New Yorker. It is an expensive, cramped mess and a logistical nightmare. You can't raise a family very easily there, so it is a lousy place to put down covenant roots.

    2.) I've seen Keller plenty of times before anybody knew he existed. I thought he was effeminate and pseudo-intellectual. It is as if Dick Cavett -- or a straight version of Merv Griffin -- went to WTS.

    The Bayly Bros have the best summary of Keller's teaching I've ever seen: "Blah blah blah blah blah I blah blah would blah blah blah definitely say blah blah blah blah blah..."

    When he tries to be profound, he is repetitive and banal:

    a.) "You're more sinful than you ever dared believe; you're more loved than you ever dared hope." He says that over and over. That's a.) not entirely accurate (God loves AND hates the reprobate) and b.) a mere remix of the Campus Crusade slogan.

    b.) He also says "religion does this and that bad thing," as if Presbyterianism is not a religious type.

    2.) Why is New York City something special? It has been declining for decades. Why is it more important than other falling urban jungles like Dallas, Baltimore or Cincinnati? It's because being a hot shot in New York carries more social status than having a big church in a place like Birmingham or Richmond.

    3.) Where's all the Jewish converts? I always wondered this. If Redeemer's alleged success matches the hype, knowing the demographics of Midtown Manhattan, shouldn't it be at least 35-40% Jewish?

    Yet they're doing all this posturing to reach those "unique" people. You know, "unique." (Ahem.) Those "New Yorkers." (cough, cough.) These people are so cosmopolitan (wink wink) and easily turned off by the Gospel (nudge nudge). So where are they?

    4.) "I've seen the guilt by association fallacy [???] enough to see how "wrongheaded" it is too."

    Did you read what I wrote? :-)

    Obviously, there's no connection between Keller and the people I name. The point that when you certain ideas over and over in history, with the same results, you have a good idea what to expect when they repeat in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Randall,

    What's wrong with Acts 29?

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. If Keller is weak on some issues, it's fine for critics to ping him on those issues.

    2. If, however, they try to extrapolate to his ministry in toto, then they need to be broadly conversant with the totality of his preaching and the impact of Redeemer on the neighborhood.

    3. We tend to judge famous pastors more by what they say than what they do. But that can foster a lopsided impression. For all I know, Redeemer church may have many ministries which impact the NYC community, that don't get much press. But that's one of the ways of evaluating his ministry.

    4. I disagree with his position on theistic evolution.

    5. I think he fumbled the question on unisex marriage.

    6. I think it's wrong to take an all-or-nothing approach to his ministry. Likewise, we have to judge his ministry by the local challenges he faces.

    7. A pastor is a generalist. There are OT scholars and NT scholars who could do better than he does on Biblical exegesis. There are Christian philosophers, ethicists, and apologists who could do better than he does on philosophy, ethics, and apologetics.

    On the other hand, a specialist is only expert within his field of specialization.

    We should judge a pastor by what he does with what he's got. The parable of the talents.

    8. There's no telling who will succeed. Opportune, providential circumstances may elevate someone to a position of prominence, even if there are more gifted individuals who could theoretically fill the same niche. Take David Wilkerson.

    My impression is that Keller operates at a higher level than many prominent spokesmen for the Christian faith, such as Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Franklin Graham, Jerry Fallwell, Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, much less Joel Osteen, John Hagee, Chuck Smith, &c.

    He's probably comparable to Mark Dever or Albert Mohler.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think he fumbled the question on unisex marriage.


    Is there a link for his statement on that?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah, I second the question about what is wrong with Acts 29 ???

    A pastor is a generalist... There are Christian philosophers, ethicists, and apologists who could do better than he does on philosophy, ethics, and apologetics... We should judge a pastor by what he does with what he's got. The parable of the talents.

    I agree, but he has got Scripture and is able to read. I think people's complaint (mine included) is that in some important areas he is not doing what he is quite capable of doing. The Bayly Blog has shown some quite clear compromise with feminism with Keller and the larger issues behind women deacons. No doubt he would not be alone in that charge.

    On the other hand I have seen him on a panel discussion with Brian Mclaren and Alister Mcgrath and he openly said he believes in inerrancy even though that was clearly not the most popular answer with respect to the angle of the questioner and his co-panelists' answers.

    Mixed bag.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Craig said:

    Theoretical "exclusivity" has no bite until it starts chewing on some idols.

    Since Keller addresses various kinds of idols both from the pulpit and in print, this is an empty objection.

    It's amazing that faithful NYC Christians can survive standing in line for their orange mocha frappucinos every day.

    This stereotyping and dismissive mockery will be ignored for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ken,

    I think people might be referring to this, though I am not certain:

    http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/04/compare-and-contrast.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rhology:

    "What's wrong with Acts 29?"

    I'll probably get in trouble attacking two personality cults in one thread. :-)

    I don't have any special experience with them, anyway. I do, however, with our main topic…

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, Matthew. Keller calls out specific idols. He has to be selective otherwise his audience might think they're not as special as they like to tell the fly-overs they are.

    BTW, there's some orange frapp on your lip.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Randall,

    Don't worry, I dig Mark Driscoll in general, but (and there's always a "but" with him) am far from a blind and uncritical fanboy.
    So I'd much like to know your take on Acts 29. I am curious, no sarcasm intended.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Matthew Schultz: "You need to account for the locale."

    Be careful not to take such rationalizations and justifications too far. "Locale" cannot be allowed to warp the whole counsel of God.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Matthew:

    “If Keller wanted to preach an uncontroversial Gospel in New York City, he wouldn't utilize C.S. Lewis' trilemma or claim that Christianity is a superior religion.”

    Say what?

    1.) The Lewis Trilemma, be it good or bad, is irrelevant. It was written for British people who still had sentimental ideas about Church, Christmas, and religion. The audience was not going to say Jesus is a liar or a lunatic. They would be led to say he is Lord. The same trick used to work with the sort of Americans who would go to Billy Graham crusades or the Easter pageant at First Baptist.

    Keller says those days are all gone – and there he may be right. So why use the Trilemma? Someone in Manhattan today is perfectly comfortable saying Jesus is a liar or a lunatic. They might say Jesus never existed, that the NT is untrustworthy, or something else. Lewis’ rhetorical device won’t work. It's just dated.

    Here’s what makes things worse. There are 1.9 million people in New York City with a 2,000-year cultural memory of Jesus as the worst man who ever lived. Why couldn’t they just shout, “Liar! Liar! Jesus isn’t Lord, he’s a Liar?”

    2.) As for the "superior religion" stuff, so what? Use some sophistication. Christianity may be superior to all other religions. But what? Something may be superior, yet not true.

    For example: To a Reformed person, the Jansenists are superior to the Jesuits. Yet they are both wrong. So the point about superiority is pretty meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Randall van der Sterren,

    Since you offer several gratuitous, hand-waving gestures, I'll restrict my comments to areas of substance:

    You said:

    New York's civic religion only has ONE sin? That's just silly.

    You need to keep up with your own objections. The major underlying postmodern sin from the perspective of the postmodern world is to make exclusive/normative truth claims. Keller does this all the time. Therefore, your charge of preaching Christ without the "controversial parts" is shown to be false.

    You can note areas where he underperforms, but your assertions are unjust as they stand.

    2.) Why is New York City something special? It has been declining for decades. Why is it more important than other falling urban jungles like Dallas, Baltimore or Cincinnati? It's because being a hot shot in New York carries more social status than having a big church in a place like Birmingham or Richmond.

    In many respects, it's the cultural capital of the world. For an ex-New Yorker, you don't demonstrate a grasp of the city's influence on finance, the arts, media, education, fashion, etc.

    It's importance as a sociological phenomenon is distinct from whatever sense of pride New Yorkers, Christian or not, have in their city. It's not as if perceived social status negates objective influence.

    Further, this is a deeply cynical imputation of motives for which you have not presented any evidence.

    I suspect the picture is some of both good and bad motives. But the pulpit often utilizes self-denigrating humor about New Yorkers. That's not the kind of rhetoric you use when you take yourself too seriously.

    Obviously, there's no connection between Keller and the people I name.

    Your objection is predicated on an alleged methodological relationship between the groups. Whether Keller has an actual relationship with those groups is irrelevant. All you did was posit that groups you didn't like are acting in the same way Keller's ministry is acting or share a basic methodology.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Randall van der Sterren said:

    Keller says those days are all gone – and there he may be right. So why use the Trilemma? Someone in Manhattan today is perfectly comfortable saying Jesus is a liar or a lunatic. They might say Jesus never existed, that the NT is untrustworthy, or something else. Lewis’ rhetorical device won’t work. It's just dated.

    ...

    2.) As for the "superior religion" stuff, so what? Use some sophistication. Christianity may be superior to all other religions. But what? Something may be superior, yet not true.

    You're consistently failing to comprehend the issues on the table.

    You need to educate yourself on Keller's ministry before you get to charge a simplistic use of superiority. Keller does more than claim that Christianity is superior in your simplistic sense; he also claims that it is true, and consistently defends the inerrancy of Scripture and the eye-witness testimony of the Gospels, to take two examples, against charges that it is a contradictory myth or legendary development. You don't regularly appeal to Bauckham's treatment of eye-witness testimony from the pulpit or in public gatherings if you think Christianity is just morally superior, or whatever it is you think Keller has in mind.

    Of course, superiority in truth is the natural outworking of denying the postmodern framework. I thought you were a native New Yorker. Try understanding what sense of "superiority" is being utilized in this context, and what claims of superiority entail in the postmodern world. You think Keller's ministry is best summarized by empty "blah blah blah," but it seems that's more aptly applied to your engagement of Keller's ministry and of the culture in which you once lived.

    I don't like Keller's use of the trilemma. That's probably an artifact of Keller being heavily indebted to C.S. Lewis, an author I also don't like (even though I still appreciate a great deal of his work). I raised the trilemma as evidence that Keller doesn't compromise on the Gospel in the manner you asserted he did. Even if you disagree with one of the tools he uses, he assaults postmodern assumptions. That kind of thinking is perceived as deeply intolerant and backward. He wouldn't use something like the trilemma if he was interested in preaching the Gospel "without the controversial parts."

    I'll probably get in trouble attacking two personality cults in one thread. :-)

    Go grind your ax somewhere else. Since I have stated that Keller does some things incorrectly, and that he isn't beyond criticism, this kind of charge is simply unhelpful, at best. Your vacuous carping, which so helpfully models the secular world's ironist tradition of never appreciating anyone who is regarded as successful and being deeply suspicious of any sort of fame, is tiresome. It's a kind of doubly ironic conformity to the world for which you fault Keller.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Halo,
    thanks for the links. I didn't realize.

    I only knew about his seemingly unclear position on young earth creationism vs. old earth and theistic evolution.

    Matthew,
    Overall, I think you are doing an excellent job on this - we all who are strong on doctrine need to learn to reach out to these folks.

    Even though I disagree with Keller on theistic evolution and the way he struggled on answering upfront and clearly on the homosexual issue - you are right to give him credit on ministering the gospel in "Gotham" - it is very difficult, and there are few sound doctrinal ministries doing that kind of ministry.

    the same can be said for outreach to Muslims.

    Dr. White makes a great point in really seeking to understand the other side and communicate and articulate in such a way so that the other side sees that you understand where they are coming from. He did an excellent job of interacting with Brian McLaren recently.

    Our tendency to quick to judge and Guilt by Association methods and 5th degree separation ideas are some of the other reasons why young people in church go to the emerging/emergent paradigm.

    We need to improve in this area. Your article gives a good balance.

    thanks Matthew. Good article, good balance, and it has discernment.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'll second Ken's comments with regard to Matt's post.

    Also, I think Keller can evangelize secularists in a way that I don't think many others can. For example, check out his talk at the Veritas Forum at UC Berkeley. Or better yet check out his Reason for God talk at Google which at the time was the most attended of any of the Authors@Google talks (as I recall). In this respect, I think Keller might be better suited as an evangelist than a pastor. Perhaps closer to someone like Francis Schaeffer.

    ReplyDelete
  26. C. Andiron posted a link in the Triablogue post "Keller in the Dock" that argues that Keller is fairly liberal.

    Opening excerpt:

    "I was so surprised to see an article posted here - on my own website about my former pastor, Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York city! I went to Tim Keller's church for nearly 20 years and in fact I left just last year because of my growing concern that the church and Tim were far more liberal, theologically and ideologically than I had ever imagined.

    However, I never intended to write anything about it here because it just didn't seem like a relevant topic on FreedomTorch. But since conservative FreedomTorch members are writing about him and doing so in a most positive way, I feel I must warn my conservative political and conservative Christian friends that Tim Keller, despite all claims to the contrary, is not a theological or an ideological conservative and he is most definitely not a traditional Evangelical. He is in fact very liberal on both counts. And this is something of concern, because as J. Gresham Machen so well put it in his book "Christianity & Liberalism" liberal Christianity really isn't Christianity at all. And I might add the corresponding political statement that liberal Americanism isn't Americanism at all either!

    The Christian media is fond of telling us that Tim Keller is an Evangelical Christian… just like us, they seem to imply. So one thing Christians need to know about Tim's teachings is that they are really anything but what we have come to know as "Evangelical" Christianity. To sum it up most succinctly, you should know that Keller says "the primary purpose of salvation is – cultural renewal – to make this world a better place." Whether you agree or disagree with that statement – it's certainly not an "Evangelical" or conservative Christian belief.

    As if to prove the point that he is in fact not an Evangelical Christian, Keller goes on from there to actually attack traditional Evangelicals for their, what he believes, wrong emphasis on helping people see their need for a way out of their sin by introducing them to Christ as the only way to personal salvation. He suggests that Christians need to put a lot less emphasis on that - because as he says derisively, Evangelicals with all their emphasis on evangelizing are just "building up their own tribe." He says this is not doing any good for people who aren't in the "tribe", (like secularists, Buddhists and atheists)."

    ReplyDelete
  27. "To sum it up most succinctly, you should know that Keller says "the primary purpose of salvation is – cultural renewal – to make this world a better place."

    Wow. He needs to back up that statement with documentation.

    During the 90s, before D. James Kennedy passed away, if you watched his Coral Ridge Hour, and that was the only exposure you had to him, you would think his main agenda was
    the cultural mandate and restoring America to its Christian principles, etc.

    But that would not be accurate as to the fullness of his ministry.

    But, if all those things are true that that blogger wrote (that TUAD quotes) about Keller, it is certainly cause for concern.

    I always appreciated Francis Schaeffer's approach and the balance of "hospitality and answering honest questions" (balance of love and truth).

    ReplyDelete
  28. In re-reading the link that C. Andiron provided I found that it's a small excerpt from a much more in-depth examination of Keller's liberalism.

    The more comprehensive critique is Tim Keller and Social Justice and it has 73 comments so far.

    ReplyDelete
  29. TUAD,

    I don't know why you think it's productive to reproduce a large portion of what can only be described as an ill-informed hit piece, especially since it's already been linked to on another thread at Triablogue. Maybe it's because you have a habit of arguing through links, rather than directly defending what you believe.

    I have Generous Justice on my shelf. Having read Marx and Rawls, Keller's book strikes as neither communist/socialist nor liberal. Jonathan Cousar's article reads much into the "rights" talk in Keller's book. Like some uncritical conservatives, he's haunted by the specter of socialism.

    Without taking the book down from the shelf to review it, I recall Keller arguing in a sermon that Biblical justice entails that our resources belong to the community, that we should utilize our talents and wealth to help others flourish, rather than spending them on ourselves.

    Just like anything else Keller offers, this position can be criticized. But this isn't a position that selects for a particular form of government. It seems political-neutral, at least in the critical sense that it identifies no distribution system. It seems much more compatible with his ministry that Keller would believe the motivation for distribution will come not from the heavy hand of government, but an overflow of appreciation for the love Christ has for us in the Gospel.

    I read Generous Justice several months ago, so perhaps I don't recall the details appropriately. But Couser's article doesn't do the necessary study of context, both immediately with respect to the book and broadly with respect to his ministry, to demonstrate his critique properly captures Keller's position.

    As a (reluctant) capitalist and right-leaning libertarian, I'm wary of socialist and liberal economic policies. Keller's book didn't seem to raise any of those political or economic policy flags.

    Try to be more discerning and more informed before recommending these kinds of articles.

    Ken,

    I'd take what's said there with a grain of salt. Someone needs to unpack what, exactly, Keller has in mind by cultural renewal, before the inferred conclusion can be reached. The article doesn't do this in any meaningful way. From what I understand of Keller's ministry, the reduction/inference is simplistic and inappropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  30. TUAD said:

    P.S. Matthew Schultz, I don't think it's quite the "ill-informed hit piece" that you dismissively describe. When you consider that the author was a member of Tim Keller's church for 20 years you have to give that some weight. He's not writing as an outside observer.

    Which means what? The insider perspective merely grants the individual a fair hearing. This doesn't give a presumption of accuracy.

    I didn't just dismiss the article. I engaged one of its primary points.

    Just like I give some weight to Randall van der Sterren who wrote:

    You need to drop the habit of using proxies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Halo: also, Doug Wilson had a piece:

    http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8624:a-waffle-way-too-big-for-the-plates-at-ihop&catid=84:sex-and-culture


    Hi Halo,

    Thanks so much for providing this link to Doug Wilson's post. It's quite helpful to read his arguments too.

    ReplyDelete
  32. TUAD said:

    Matthew Schultz, did you give the author of "Tim Keller and Social Justice" a fair hearing? I don't think you did when you dismissively referred to it as an "ill-informed hit piece."

    Your attitude is the same crap I read from Catholics who dismiss John Bugay as a sour and bitter ex-Catholic.

    Get over your pompous self.


    Whoa, easy there, TUAD! As I read him, Matt did engage the article (e.g. not having a "distribution system"). Also, I don't know that it's "dismissive" to label something an "ill-informed hit piece" if one attempts to engage it and demonstrate that it is so. I think Matt did try to do this. So I don't think Matt is merely "dismissing" the article with a "sour and bitter" attitude similar to how you say Catholics dismiss John. Just my two cents' worth.

    ReplyDelete
  33. In my 1:18 comment I wrote:

    "The more comprehensive critique is Tim Keller and Social Justice and it has 73 comments so far."

    I read it again and the author supports his arguments. He's not ill-informed about Tim Keller.

    Matthew Schultz may not like his arguments, but the author is not ill-informed about Tim Keller. In fact, the author goes into his arguments in some lengthy detail to make his case.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Matthew Schultz: "I have Generous Justice on my shelf. Having read Marx and Rawls, Keller's book strikes as neither communist/socialist nor liberal. Jonathan Cousar's article reads much into the "rights" talk in Keller's book. Like some uncritical conservatives, he's haunted by the specter of socialism."

    Matthew Schultz, if you're open to reading (linked) diverse points of view that might not coincide with yours, here's a thoughtful book review of Generous Justice that you might find interesting:

    Social Justice with a Spiritual Jacket.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hey brother TUAD,

    glad you found the Wilson piece helpful.

    May I humbly ask that you and brother Matthew try and get along a wee bit better? We're all meant to be pretty much on the same team!

    Blessings,

    ReplyDelete
  36. Me in Comment 1: "Pastor Keller has done tremendous ministry work for the Glory of God and the growth of God's Kingdom."

    For example:

    "A number of leaders today–from evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions–unveiled a new statement (4,000+ words; six pages) called The Manhattan Declaration. It was drafted by Chuck Colson, Robert P. George, and Timothy George. Signers of the statement include J.I. Packer, Tim Keller, Albert Mohler, and over 100 others."

    That's clear that Tim Keller is against unisex marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh no, not the Manhattan Declaration!

    Geesh TUAD, it's been over a year. Let it go.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have no confidence that Randall's answer to a question about what's wrong with Acts 29 will have any light to go with his heat.

    ReplyDelete